Loading...
PC 04-13-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 77%3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 13, 1998 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Doyle, Harris, Stevens, Vice Chairperson Mahoney Chairwoman Austin Staffpresent: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung; Associate Planner; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Rhys Rowland, Planning Intern; Eileen Mmray, Deputy City Attorney Vice Chair Mahoney chaired the meeting in Chairwoman Austin's absence. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the March 23, 1998 meeting: The minutes were reflected to clarify that Com. Stevens was present; Com. Harris was absent. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner clarified the wording in the third paragraph on Page 4, line 6 to read:"second story addition for her children and herself, and to accommodate her mother on the firstfloor'" MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve the March 23, 1998 Planning Commission minutes as amended. Chair Mahoney Com. Austin Coms. Doyle and Harris Passed 2-0-2 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Mahoney noted correspondence from the architects relative to the Shane Company application. Com. Harris noted a copy of a letter to the Board of Supervisors from Marc Auerbach relative to Rancho Rinconada. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 5-U-98 and 11-EA-98 Hossain Khaziri 10002 DeAnza Blvd Planning Commiggion Mining 2 April To demolish an inactive service station and construct a new 778 square foot service station and 648 square foot car wash. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April 20, 1998 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO MAY 1 l, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 1-TM-98 Quality Design Concepts (Walgreen's) 10795 S. Blaney & 20075 Bollinger Tentative Map to subdivide an existing 4.55 acre existing shopping center into 3 parcels. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO MAY 11, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to continue Items 2 and 4 to the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Harris Com. Austin Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 3-ASA-98 SEM Architects 21255 Stevens Creek Blvd. To remodel and re-landscape an existing building at the Oaks Shopping Center including minor exterior modifications. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERIvI1NATION: Categorically Exempt Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to remodel and re-landscape a former restaurant at the Oaks Shopping Center to a retail jewelry store. The interior of the building will be remodeled to accommodate showroom and support spaces; and the exterior will accommodate relocation of the entry as well as reconfiguration of doors and windows and some minor landscaping as outlined in the attached staff report. Although staff recommends approval of the application; staff is concerned with the loss of both the semi-street oriented entry and clear windows facing the streets which results in a loss orientation to the street and a plain looking east elevation. Staff feels the wall should be visually enhanced by adding windows or retaining the wood panel, or something similar. The Planning Commission's decision will be considered final unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 13, 109~ Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, illustrated the proposed changes on the various elevations. Mr. Timothy Stead, SEM Architects, clarified that the door on the Mary Avenue side was previously used as a fire exit. He explained the reasons for the elimination of the window and door on the east elevation were because they were not being used and are located in the bathroom area and would have been difficult to keep them. He said that the window on the far left of that elevation could be infilled with glass block to retain some visual interest in that comer; but the door could not remain. He said the wood screen on the back is currently an open area, actually a trash area inside the building. He said it was removed because it was structurally unsound and they proposed to replace it with slump block. Mr. Stead said that if necessary, it could be rebuilt as wood. He noted that staff was concerned with the Stevens Creek Blvd. elevation because of it losing some of its relationship to the street; however, the architect supported it because of the applicant's needs. Com. Doyle expressed concern about the lighting on the east elevation; because of the blank wall and large cave. He questioned if there was a way of providing lighting to add some interest. Mr. Stead said they were currently showing lighting underneath the cave of the building, shining down on the wall. Com. Harris said that she felt leaving the first window would be appropriate for the view, relative to the solid wall that would be created. She said she felt the remainder of the long building was very barren, and asked if there were other ways to make it more attractive as Mary Avenue was a major street. Mr. Stead said that the building was difficult to work with, and putting windows in the concrete building are difficult and there are seismic reasons for keeping the walls as is. He said he had not considered any other architectural approach, however, they did consider increasing the landscaping in that area where it is presently lawn area. Com. Harris said that staff was seeking direction from the Planning Commission on improving the side of the building. Mr. Stead said that the rear portion of the building with the wood screen wall could remain, and the wall could be rebuilt to a solid wall with the similar appearance of the wood screen, with the glass block in the front of the building. He added that the landscape plan could also show trees along that side of the building. In response to Com. Harris' question about the reason for the burgundy awning with the tiled roof, Mr. Stead said that the burgundy awning was the signature color of the Shane Company, and the clay tile roof was just the cap of the building. He said that he felt because of the number of clay tile roofs in the area, they would not be noticeable by the residents; but would see the awnings which are at eye level and create the visual interest they were seeking. He said that they did not feel the need to have the roof and awnings blend together. Mr. Stead pointed out that there was fluorescent lighting tucked under each awning and with the opaque awning, would shine down over the windows. Com. Stevens said he agreed that the Mary Avenue side of the building appeared very blank, but could be enhanced with trees or landscaping. Com. Doyle said that he was in favor of the application, and recommended some relief for the east side which would be an improvement. He added that the landscaping was suitable. Com. Harris said she would like to see the first window kept as proposed by the applicant, and a condition to require staff approval of trees along that side to come up to the cave of the building to Planning Comrniggion Minuteg4 A rll lOOg screen some of the blank wall. She said that the comment that there were so many tile roofs in the area that the awnings would not have to blend in, was an irresponsible comment, and because of that she was opposed to the application, although she felt it was a good use of space. She said she felt the architect should take into consideration what is there and put something in that does not clash. Com. Stevens said that the blank wall on Mary Avenue is the only thing that stands out, but it has been that way for some time; trees and foliage would cover it and still remain with having security. He said he felt it was a good idea, with the possible exception of lack of color coordination. Chair Mahoney said he was not opposed to leaving the window in and that the relief provided by the landscaping to the east side was suitable. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve Application 3-ASA-98 with the modifications of the east window and the landscaping to be approved by staff Com. Stevens Com. Harris Com. Austin Passed 3-1-0 PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Location: 4-U-98 Daryn Lau 20980 Stevens Creek Blvd. Use Permit to extend business hours to 2 a.m. at an existing restaurant location. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to extend the business hours ora restaurant specializing in Japanese and American cuisine to 2 a.m. Staff feels that a midnight closing time is more appropriate. Staff recommends denial of the request for a 2 a.m. closing; however if the 2 a.m. request is approved, staff favors the installation of a masonry wall between the restaurant's parking lot and an adjacent residence to the south. A decision if reached this evening will be considered the Planning Commission's final decision with respect to the application, unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Rhys Rowland, Planning Intern, illustrated an overhead of the site plan and noted the location of the residential units in the area and answered Commissioners' questions. Ms. J. Lau, applicant, said that the restaurant was open to the public and would also reach out to the Japanese business people who needed a place to meet out and eat late at night. Chairperson Mahoney opened the meeting for public input. There was no one present who wished - to speak on the application. Planning Commission Minuteg 5 April Com. Stevens expressed concern about the impact on the parking for the fourplexes and existing residences. He said the 8 foot wall might attenuate that. He said he recognized the need for the service because of Cupertino's unique culture base. Com. Stevens said he was in favor of the midnight closing time, or 2 a.m. with a condition to be reviewed. Com. Harris said that she was in favor of the midnight closure time as the need existed in Cupertino for late night restaurants. She said that parking up against the back fence may be a problem as there was 120 feet between the back of the building and the fence; and she suggested that a "no parking after 10 p.m." sign be posted so that .the residents would not be bothered by the headlights late at night. She said as a resident, she would not want to have to look at an 8 foot high masonry wall. Com. Doyle said that he was in favor of a midnight closure because of neighbors' issues. He added that late night restaurants adjacent to residential had not been successful in the past and midnight was an appropriate closing time. Mr. Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development, said that the possibility existed to install a wood wall with plywood filler instead of a masronry wall. Chair Mahoney said that he was in favor of a midnight closing time, with an attempt to restrict the parking, and if noise became a problem, there would be a conditional clause to address the issue. Chair Mahoney explained to the applicant that the two alternatives were to approve the application with a midnight closing time instead of the requested 2 a.m.; or deny the application, which would allow the applicant to file an appeal with the City Council. Ms. Lau said that the midnight closing time would be adequate. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 4-U-98 with hours of operation until midnight; with the restriction that the south end of the parking lot will be posted restricting parking in the 6 spaces after 10 p.m.; and that if sound becomes a problem to the adjacent houses, it will be brought back for consideration of a wall to be built by the applicant Com. Stevens Com. Austin Passed 4-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 5-U-64 (M) and 12-EA-98 William Chen (Great Western Bank) 10250 S. DeAnza Boulevard Use Permit to construct additional bank space (1,050 square feet) at an existing bank. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to remodel and add 1,050 square feet to the existing bank branch, which would enclose the existing courtyard and accommodate 2-4 new employees. Staff recommends approval of the application; and requests that the applicant make streetscape improvements along DeAnza Boulevard and Rodrigues Planning Commiggion Minutog 6 Al ri113, lCJC)g Avenue to provide a more pedestrian-friendly atmosphere and provide continuity with the Symantec property under construction to the north. Referring to the site plan, Ms. Wordell illustrated the proposed changes. She requested that the Planning Commission consider a minor change to condition 3 relative to the transition between the sidewalk area proposed on the property and the Symantec property. She also requested that a change be made in the findings in the resolution, as they am not currently for use permits. There was a brief discussion regarding the requirement for a bus turnout. Mr. David Kays, representing the amhitect, was present. There were no questions for the applicant. Com. Harris said she was in favor of the application. Com. Doyle said that the design appeared boxy, but felt the landscaping would break it up. Com. Stevens said he was not opposed to the application, and noted that it was a boxy appearance also. He added that he liked the public room that had been available for community use. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve the Negative Declaration on 12-EA-98 Com. Harris Com. Austin Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 5-U-64 (M) according to the model resolution as amended with findings A and B replaced per discussion, and removal of the words "bus turnout" from Condition 4. Com. Doyle Com. Austin Passed 4-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 11-Z-97 and 8-EA-98 Amendment to R1 Ordinance City of Cupertino Citywide Amendment to the Single Family Residential ordinance regarding building mass, setback and height. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED There was a lengthy discussion regarding appropriate dates for upcoming meetings. Chair Mahoney welcomed public input, noting that there were upcoming workshops, and no decisions would be made at tonight's meeting. Mr. John Luring, Hibiscus Drive, said he applauded what the Planning Commission was doing relative to the size of buildings. He said that he previously addressed the building of two story dwellings on Hibiscus Drive, and was presenting a petition requesting that Hibiscus Drive be zoned for single story homes. He said that 16 people resided on the street; and he obtained signatures from 10 of them asking that it be zoned single family; single story. He noted that he Planning Commission Minutes 7 A! ril B, lgOg would poll the status of 3 other households on the street by the April 27 meeting; and that 3 were non-owners. Mr. Cowan clarified that relative to the petition, the Planning Commission could request staff prepare a report and some maps for a later decision; or staff could be directed to schedule a hearing. Chair Mahoney requested staffto schedule a public hearing. Mr. Cowan said it would be on the next agenda for discussion for a hearing; the actual hearing would be scheduled in about two months. Ms. Lacy Cantrell, said that she lived on the comer of Gardenview and Mann Lane and she hoped the building roles would not be an overdose of restrictions. She said there were rules allowing people to build houses big enough to meet their needs. She asked to keep the existing floor area ratio, stating that many people bought their homes with the idea of remodeling, and the expectations that they could build 45% of the lot area; property values are tied to FAR. She concluded by asking that the Planning Commission find a way to make houses look smaller but blend it in with the neighborhood, but not reduce FAR. Mr. Jean Claude Roy, Monte Court, said that Cupertino's residential building standards are of monumental importance to the future of the city; and suggested seeking input from all of the residents of the city. He suggested scheduling evening or weekend community meetings, advertising in the Cupertino Courier to organize discussion groups on this important issue. He said that getting people together with different opinions talking to each other, voicing their concerns, working together and brainstorming for possible solutions, was the kind of process that helps build consensus, and often yields a more acceptable result for all involved. Ms. Linda Roy, Monte Court, said that she saw both sides of the issue, with some concerns about homes overpowering the neighborhood and other concerns about property rights, and said it is a balancing act trying to ascertain whose rights are more important and how you are going to trade off one against the other. She said she was opposed to design review if it involves neighbors because some are reasonable and others are not. Ms. Roy proposed a design review process that had a certain amount of money added to the building permit fees, with a list of architects, home designers, outside professionals, so that city staff would not have to be involved; and from that list randomly select five persons for a meeting once or twice a month to review preliminary design plans, including floor plans and elevations. The homeowner would invest money for an architect to come up with preliminary plans and meet with the committee to review their plans and add comments or suggestions so that the home fit into the particular neighborhood. There could be an interaction between the homeowner and the homeowner's architect or building designer and the committee. Ms. Roy said that she envisioned such a plan to avoid moving toward ministerial rules resulting in one set of strict rules to fit many different scenarios. She said that she did not want the end result to be small ugly houses that do not fit into the neighborhoods, which was no better than large ugly houses not fitting into the neighborhood. She said without design review, there is no guarantee that the house will fit into the neighborhood, and there is no substitute for human judgment. Chair Mahoney closed the public hearing. MOTION: SECOND: Com. Doyle moved to continue Application 11-Z-97 and 8-EA-98 to the April 27, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Harris Planning Commission Minuteg g Avfi113,100 ABSENT: Com. Austin VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 .. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 4-Z-98 and 10-EA-98 City of Cupertino Citywide Amendments to the Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapters .32, 16.28, 17.44, 19.132 & 19.134 to enable the creation of a design review subcommittee of the Planning Commission and change public noticing requirements for fence exceptions, sign exceptions, and Community Development Director's administrative applications referred to the Planning Commission. Staff presentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, explained that the design review process was to attempt to reduce the Planning Commission's workload by simplifying its design review responsibilities and diverting minor applications from the hearing agenda to the consent calendar; and devise ways to incorporate professional architectural advice where it adds value to the design review process. He reviewed the spectrum of design review models (Exhibit A), and outlined the advantages and disadvantages of the different concepts. Staff recommends the Planning Commission Subcommittee Model, which is an appointed subcommittee of the Planning Commission whereby two Planning Commissioners would be more actively involved in the design review of projects, working with architects, neighbors, in an informal meeting setting. A minor application receiving unanimous approval of the subcommittee could go on the consent calendar and be approved in one motion without having a full hearing on the item. Staff suggests minor changes to the following ordinances to streamline the process and create consistency: 2.32, Planning Commission; 16.28, Fences; 17.44, Sign Exceptions; 19.132, Administrative Approval of Minor Changes in Projects; and 19.133 Architectural and Site Review Process for Development Applications. Mr. Jung reviewed the suggested changes to the ordinances as set forth in the staff report, and answered Commissioners' questions. Mr. Jung reviewed Exhibit A-l, the rules of procedure for the design review subcommittee and answered questions. He clarified that the first meeting of the month would not be held if there were no agenda items. Staff recommends a negative declaration on the ordinance changes and approval in accordance with the model resolution. In response to Chair Mahoney's request for clarification, Mr. Jung explained that the purpose of the subcommittee was as a review and recommending body, who would get the first look at major projects before they are presented to the full Planning Commission. Mr. Cowan clarified that the architectural advisor, acting in an advisory capacity, could provide assistance, but was not a member of the subcommittee. Com. Harris referred to Page 7-50 of the staffreport and suggested that the five issues listed under Functions be incorporated in the procedure; as well as the last paragraph on Page 7-51 and Trial Period listed on Page 7-53. She said she felt that the amhitectural consultant needs to be spelled out in a paragraph and a statement included listing the subcommittee composition. In Staff Responsibilities, she suggested that it state "select and brief architectural advisor". Relative to the term appointment, Com. Harris suggested that it state that no subcommittee member shall serve more than two consecutive terms except that they may be reappointed after a hiatus of two years. She said that there should be a section called Definitions to define minor design items, minor application, etc. so that the definitions are clear. Referring to the bottom of Page 7-29, referrals to Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 13, lOOg the planning commission, Com. Harris said that it needs to state what happens with the minor design items. Relative to the two meetings per month, she said that it should specify one regular meeting per month, and a second meeting may be held as needed. Chair Mahoney clarified that decisions were required relative to the noticing requirements, whether or not the subcommittee would be formed; and if formed, its functions and how it would operate. Com. Doyle said that it was his understanding that the committee would do the ASA reviews, sign exceptions, fence exceptions and some director functions as they would flow directly into this committee, as well as delegated functions from the Planning Commission. Chair Mahoney summarized the issues: comments about the proposed changes/additions from Com. Harris, such as clarification of the architectural consultant's role; definitions and examples; term of appointment; the advantages and disadvantages; the role as a pre-review body for items the Planning Commission will see as a full commission; term limits; and the trial period. Com. Stevens said that he thought he had the concept; but said the items from the to and from on page 7-6 and from on page 7-29 should be one overall concept as they are items coming to the subcommittee and coming back from the subcommittee to the Planning Commission. He said he was in favor of the rotation concept on page 7-28. Relative to the trial period, he commented that if you can create it, you can destroy it. On the role as a pre-review body, he said it depended on the amount of effort expended by the Planning Commission and the subcommittee; and to assist coordinating or assist in a method of presentation, he felt the subcommittee could be of assistance, but to format it and come up with any kind of recommendation on a major one, he felt it should be the full Planning Commission body. Chair Mahoney commented that the Planning Commissioners would likely want to have input and it would only double the time. He asked staff what they envisioned relative to the subcommittee's recommendation. Mr. Jung responded that he viewed the subcommittee making a recommendation to the full Planning Commission which may be a variance from what staff was recommending. Com. Harris expressed concern about the major projects and the potential of two philosophies on the committee not echoing the other three on the commission. She said she felt on a major project, it should come to the commission first to get the feel of the commission and to get the recommendations that come from the commission on a major project which tend to be a blending. It would then be referred back on minor items to the committee. She said that on term limits, she felt that two years on, one year off was appropriate. Com. Doyle said that on major projects, he did not feel there should be pm-review by the committee and that the Planning Commission should provide strategic suggestions to the committee. He said he felt there should not be term limits, that it rotate by decision vs. resolutions. He said it was important to have definitions, functions, composition; no trial period required, and tidying up on the consultant issue was appropriate. Chair Mahoney said he felt on major projects, no pre-review; incorporation of other changes was appropriate; no trial period required; and he agreed with Com. Doyle on term limits, that they be treated similar to environmental review. Planning Commission Minutes 10 April 13, 19911 Chair Mahoney pointed out that he did not feel a conclusion could be reached this evening. He summarized that there was agreement on the modification, the purpose; to add architectural consultant; terms not to be decided by Planning Commission, but reviewed each year; review appointments every term; make it not co-terminus with the appointment of the new chair; need definitions and examples; three categories consisting of inner applications coming to Planning Commission, what happens to those; what happens to major applications; and minor design items going from the Planning Commission. Ms. Eileen Murray, Deputy City Counsel, clarified that as a Brown Act Committee, minutes and agendas would be necessary and legal requirements would be followed. She noted that in some cases for the minor applications, the noticing was reduced to only the abutting neighbors on the fence exceptions and other exceptions and said that there had to be consistency in the noticing. She said there is a specification in the director's discretion that the notice can be expanded. She said that when it comes to the Planning Commission there has to be a second notice; which would involve two noticing processes now; because once it is on the Planning Commission agenda, it is going to be noticed again. She pointed out that the only thing going on the consent calendar would be a unanimous approval item. Ms. Wordell requested clarification on the concept that there would be no pre-review of the major projects architecturally, citing the example of a project such as the large office building presented previously to the Planning Commission; and the Planning Commission would refer it back to the subcommittee to explore something minor on the architecture. Chair Mahoney said that it was his understanding that major items would stay with the Planning Commission. Com. Harris said that it was her understanding that items such as windows, shape of the roof, etc. would be referred from the Planning Commission back to the subcommittee to address. Mr. Cowan clarified two options: send it back to the subcommittee to consider various options and bring the package back to the commission because it is an important building or if it is almost complete, let the subcommittee work on the balance of it. Mr. Cowan clarified that the commission can define the degree to which the subcommittee will make the final action. Discussion continued regarding the Planning Commission's role vs. the subcommittee's role, wherein Com. Doyle reiterated his opinion that the commission provide strategic direction and the subcommittee work out the details on minor items. The commission would define the criteria for the subcommittee to address. Com. Harris referred to page 7-13 of the staff report and discussed noticing requirements relative to sign exceptions. She cited the example of the Blockbuster Video application and the impact on the residential community. She said that in some instances, noticing should be expanded. Mr. Cowan concluded that the concept was to attempt to define those kinds of projects that just affect relatively few people vs. those that affect a broader area of the community, which would be the Planning Commission's call. He said that a sign would involve the entire community as well as fence exceptions. Com. Harris suggested that a caveat be inserted in those two areas that states where there may be significant impact to a surrounding neighborhood, the Director of Community Development should use his discretion and expand the notice. Mr. Cowan clarified that on signs, it was Planning Commission Minutes 11 April 13, 1998 appropriate to have the abutting, not the 300 feet. Com. Harris agreed, except in the event of a sensitive issue, whereas it would be stated that the notice should be expanded. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to continue Application 4-Z-98 and 10-EA-98 to the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Harris Com. Austin Passed 4-0-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Harris noted a written communication relative to the Fisari property and the development in the slide area. Com. Stevens reported on a upcoming meeting at Quinlan Center and a scheduled creek walk on Calabazas Creek. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Jung reported on recent City Council action: (1) Appeal of the Chevron signs; City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision on the signs, but wanted Mr. Cowan to look at food mart sign and do a director's minor modification. (2) Little Angels' Day Care; approved on 5-0 vote, noting need for day care in the community. (3) Prezoning of single family residential lot in Garden Gate; agreed with Planning Commission conclusions and approved prezoning on 5-0 vote. (4) Final item was relative to joint meeting with the Planning Commission; they agreed to concept of having a technical workshop on April 15; also agreed to April 20 meeting time before City Council meeting. Councilmember Burnett asked that the Planning Commissioners' review of the height of the first story wall plain continue as he felt the heights were excessive. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLll~PINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m. to the joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission on Monday, April 20, 1998 at 6 p.m. Approved as amended: April 27, 1998 Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary